7/11/2015

G.R.No.43429,Gonzalezv.DeJose,66Phil.369PhilippineLaw.info

Gumawa Facebook Profile

Kumonekta sa Kaibigan, Kapamilya at Kaklase. Gumawa ng Profile
Ngayon!

Search

PhilippineLaw.info
The most comprehensive free-access online database of Philippine law materials.

Constitutions Laws Judiciary Specials Legal Help Law Students Forum

About Us Privacy Policy
PhilippineLaw.info Jurisprudence 1938 October
PhilippineLaw.info Jurisprudence Phil. Rep. Vol. 66

G.R. No. 43429, Gonzalez v.

De Jose, 66 Phil. 369
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

PhilippineLaw.info
LikePage

8.9klikes

October 24, 1938

Bethefirstofyourfriendstolikethis

G.R. No. 43429

BENITO GONZALEZ, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FLORENTINO DE JOSE, defendant-appellant.
Felino Villasin for appellant.
Eusebio Orense for appellee.
IMPERIAL, J.:
This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover from the
http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr43429gonzalezvdejose.html

1/4

7/11/2015

G.R.No.43429,Gonzalezv.DeJose,66Phil.369PhilippineLaw.info

defendant the amount of two promissory notes worded as

follows:
I promise to pay Mr. Benito Gonzalez the sum of four
hundred three pesos and fifty-five centavos (P403.55) as
soon as possible.
Anterior

P71.10

474.65

Sept. 12, 1922

300.00

Balance

174.65
Manila, June 22, 1922.
(Sgd.) FLORENTINO DE JOSE
Quezon, Nueva Ecija

I promise to pay Mr. Benito Gonzalez the sum of three

hundred and seventy-three pesos and thirty centavos
(P373.30) as soon as possible.
In Manila, this 13th day of September, 1922.
(Sgd.) FLORENTINO DE JOSE
Defendant appealed from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Manila ordering him to pay the plaintiff the sum of
P547.95 within thirty days from the date of notification of sad
decision, plus the costs.
In his answer the defendant interposed the special defenses
that the complaint is uncertain inasmuch as it does not specify
when the indebtedness was incurred or when it was
demandable, and that, granting that the plaintiff has any cause
of action, the same has prescribed in accordance with law.
Resolving the defense of prescription, the trial court held that
the action for the recovery of the amount of the two promissory
http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr43429gonzalezvdejose.html

2/4

7/11/2015

G.R.No.43429,Gonzalezv.DeJose,66Phil.369PhilippineLaw.info

notes has not prescribed in accordance with article 1128 of the

Civil Code which provides:
ART. 1128. If the obligations does not specify a term, but it
is to be inferred from its nature and circumstances that it
was intended to grant the debtor time for its performance,
the period of the term shall be fixed by the court.
The court shall also fix the duration of the term when it has
been left to the will of the debtor.
It is practically admitted by the parties that the obligations
arising from the two promissory notes should be governed by
said article, inasmuch as it was the intention of the plaintiff,
evidenced by the terms of the said notes, to grant the debtor a
period within which to pay the debts. The four errors assigned
by the defendant turn on the applicability of article 1128 and on
the prescription of the action brought by the plaintiff. The
defendant contends that article 1113 of the Civil Code should be
applied inasmuch as the obligations derived from the
promissory notes were demandable from the time of their
execution, and adds that even supposing that article 1128 is
applicable, the action to ask the court to fix the period had
already prescribed in accordance with section 43 (1) of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
We hold that the two promissory notes are governed by article
1123 because under the terms thereof the plaintiff intended to
grant the defendant a period within which to pay his debts. as
the promissory notes do not fix this period, it is for the court to
fix the same. (Eleizagui vs. Manila Lawn Tennis Club, 2 Phil., 309;
Barretto vs. City of Manila, 7 Phil., 416;Floriano vs. Delgado, 11
Phil., 154; Levy Hermanos vs. Paterno, 18 Phil, 353.) The action
to ask the court to fix the period has already prescribed in
accordance with section 43 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
This period of prescription is ten years, which has already
elapsed from the execution of the promissory notes until the
filing of the action on June 1, 1934. The action which should be
brought in accordance with article 1128 is different from the
http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr43429gonzalezvdejose.html

3/4

7/11/2015

G.R.No.43429,Gonzalezv.DeJose,66Phil.369PhilippineLaw.info

action for the recovery of the amount of the notes, although the
effects of both are the same, being, like other civil actions,
subject to the rules of prescription.
The action brought by the plaintiff having already prescribed,
the appealed decision should be reversed and the defendant
absolved from the complaint, without special pronouncement
as to the costs in both instances. So ordered.
Avancea, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion,
JJ., concur.

Copyright 2007-2014 PhilippineLaw.info

Theme by Theme Horse

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/gr43429gonzalezvdejose.html

4/4